Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

[Wandile]

Why weren’t the latter councils ecumenical in your view Ziapueblo?

 

[ziapueblo]

The call to return to the eastern customs was reference to the Traditions, practices, rites and theology of the East due to latinization of eastern Catholicism at the time. It wasn’t a call to become Eastern Orthodox.

Isn’t this Orthodox? Most Byzantine Catholics I know consider themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome,” and they seem pretty Orthodox to me.

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

The call to return to the eastern customs was reference to the Traditions, practices, rites and theology of the East due to latinization of eastern Catholicism at the time. It wasn’t a call to become Eastern Orthodox.

Isn’t this Orthodox? Most Byzantine Catholics I know consider themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome,” and they seem pretty Orthodox to me.

ZP

No Eastern Orthodoxy is a different religion.

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept papal authority, the filioque as legitimate doctrine, remarriage while your spouse is alive to be a sin, contraception to be not allowed at all. All these Eastern Catholics believe.

Funnily enough the Eastern Orthodox tend to be disturbed by and take issue with Eastern Catholics who call themselves orthodox in communion with Rome as they don’t see Eastern Catholics as holding the same faith as them because of the reasons stated above.

 

[Isaac14]

Funnily enough the Eastern Orthodox tend to be disturbed by and take issue with Eastern Catholics who call themselves orthodox in communion with Rome as they don’t see Eastern Catholics as holding the same faith as them because of the reasons stated above.

I’m not at all disturbed. Welcome Zia!

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Funnily enough the Eastern Orthodox tend to be disturbed by and take issue with Eastern Catholics who call themselves orthodox in communion with Rome as they don’t see Eastern Catholics as holding the same faith as them because of the reasons stated above.

I’m not at all disturbed. Welcome Zia!

Well, go visit the other orthodox forum and see how well “Orthodox in communion with Rome“ is received there.

 

[Isaac14]

Well, go visit the other orthodox forum and see how well “Orthodox in communion with Rome“ is received there.

Considering how the Latins that go there imply that Eastern Catholics can only be as Eastern as not conflicting with Rome, I can see why they’d be suspicious.

 

[Isaac14]

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept papal authority, the filioque as legitimate doctrine, remarriage while your spouse is alive to be a sin, contraception to be not allowed at all.

With the exception, perhaps, of contraception, none of these were a factor when our churches were in communion a millennium ago.

 

[ziapueblo]

No Eastern Orthodoxy is a different religion.

Read Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint, as well as the Balamand Statement. The Catholic Church does not see Eastern Orthodoxy as a “different religion”.

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept papal authority, the filioque as legitimate doctrine, remarriage while your spouse is alive to be a sin, contraception to be not allowed at all. All these Eastern Catholics believe.

Eastern Catholics believe in the filioque? I spent 7 + years in the Byzantine Catholic Church and they may accept it as valid Latin theology but that’s about it. Now Papal authority, that is different. I know many Byzantine Catholics that do not accept it as the West does. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics. As you noted, they differ in theology, liturgically and spiritually.

Funnily enough the Eastern Orthodox tend to be disturbed by and take issue with Eastern Catholics who call themselves orthodox in communion with Rome as they don’t see Eastern Catholics as holding the same faith as them because of the reasons stated above.

Not the ones I know.

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Well, go visit the other orthodox forum and see how well “Orthodox in communion with Rome“ is received there.

Considering how the Latins that go there imply that Eastern Catholics can only be as Eastern as not conflicting with Rome, I can see why they’d be suspicious.

Nah there are eastern Catholics there and even when they present their faith they are met with some hostility.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept papal authority, the filioque as legitimate doctrine, remarriage while your spouse is alive to be a sin, contraception to be not allowed at all.

With the exception, perhaps, of contraception, none of these were a factor when our churches were in communion a millennium ago.

But they are today. These are serious doctrinal differences.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

No Eastern Orthodoxy is a different religion.

Read Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint, as well as the Balamand Statement. The Catholic Church does not see Eastern Orthodoxy as a “different religion”.

To be the same religion there must be communion. We are not in communion with each other. There is a schism. This different religions. Nevermind the doctrinal differences.

Wandile:

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept papal authority, the filioque as legitimate doctrine, remarriage while your spouse is alive to be a sin, contraception to be not allowed at all. All these Eastern Catholics believe.

Eastern Catholics believe in the filioque? I spent 7 + years in the Byzantine Catholic Church and they may accept it as valid Latin theology but that’s about it. Now Papal authority, that is different. I know many Byzantine Catholics that do not accept it as the West does. Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholics. As you noted, they differ in theology, liturgically and spiritually.

Of course eatsern catholics believe. The just express it diffently due to a different theological framework. It’s affirmed in the union of Brest by the formula from the “Father though the Son”.

Lastly even mere acceptance of its validity in the Latin context is anathema for Eastern Orthodox so there would still be a difference between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox there.

Wandile:

Funnily enough the Eastern Orthodox tend to be disturbed by and take issue with Eastern Catholics who call themselves orthodox in communion with Rome as they don’t see Eastern Catholics as holding the same faith as them because of the reasons stated above.

Not the ones I know.

ZP

Like I said, go visit that forum. Let’s not even get into the Russian patriarch always clamoring for the extinguishment of the existence of Eastern Catholics.

 

[Isaac14]

But they are today. These are serious doctrinal differences.

Weren’t a problem before but is now…gotta love development of doctrine.

 

[ziapueblo]

To be the same religion there must be communion. We are not in communion with each other. There is a schism. This different religions. Nevermind the doctrinal differences.

This honestly is laughable! I’ll put in the links. Whether you choose to read them, that’s up to you:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

The just express it diffently due to a different theological framework.

Which is the same as the Orthodox and you call the Orthodox a different religion.

Like I said, go visit that forum.

There are Orthodox zealots online just like some Latins in this forum. Most are not like this. I go to Orthodox Churches, fellowship with them and are friends with their priests and deacons. They are not like this.

Again, read what I linked above and see what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the Orthodox.

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

But they are today. These are serious doctrinal differences.

Weren’t a problem before but is now…gotta love development of doctrine.

Well most of the differences weren’t even know to each side yet. You could see as late as the council of Trent, the Latins weren’t even aware that the Greeks allowed divorce and remarriage. The Venetian emissary had to make the council fathers aware of this.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

To be the same religion there must be communion. We are not in communion with each other. There is a schism. This different religions. Nevermind the doctrinal differences.

This honestly is laughable! I’ll put in the links. Whether you choose to read them, that’s up to you:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

The just express it diffently due to a different theological framework.

Which is the same as the Orthodox and you call the Orthodox a different religion.

No because they call our teachings heresy. How is that just a mere different theological expression?

Wandile:

Like I said, go visit that forum.

There are Orthodox zealots online just like some Latins in this forum. Most are not like this. I go to Orthodox Churches, fellowship with them and are friends with their priests and deacons. They are not like this.

Again, read what I linked above and see what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the Orthodox.

ZP

It teaches that there is a schism and full communion must be restored. Only Catholics hold the catholic religion. Even in Dominus Iesus the document makes mention that though differences are minimal (as compared to Protestants), there are still are differences. Thus that can’t be the same religion.

Just because we have changed over time in how we address them (we have even changed our tone with regards to Protestants so this isn’t unique to Eastern Orthodox) does not change the reality of the situation. There is a schism and we can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

 

[ziapueblo]

No because they call our teachings heresy. How is that just a mere different theological expression?

I don’t know any Orthodox who would call Catholics heretics except for those on the inter webs!

It teaches that there is a schism and full communion must be restored.

I agree, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not in full communion (and I have never suggested that they are) but we are in an incomplete or partial communion (I guess it depends on if you are a cup is half empty or half full kind of person). This does not make the Orthodox a different religion.

There is a schism and we can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

Whether you like it or not, Vatican II teaches that the Orthodox are “sister Churches” and true particular Churches with apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. We may not be in communion with one another but we are both the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I see my links have not yet been looked at. I suggest you take a look at them.

ZP

 

[Vico]

…
Weren’t a problem before but is now…gotta love development of doctrine.

In retrospect, the Christians broke up over doctrines decided upon in the first seven councils:
1 Council of Nicaea (325) - against Arianism
2 Council of Constantinople (381) - against Arianism and Apollinarism.
3 Council of Ephesus (431) - against teaching of two separate persons in the incarnate Christ.
4 Council of Chalcedon (451) - against Monophysitism.
5 Council of Constantinople II (553) - condemned the Three Chapters and Origenism. Affirmed that the hypostasis of Christ was the hypostasis of the pre-existent Logos.
6 Council of Constantinople III (680–681) - against Monthelitism. Affirmed two wills in Christ.
7 Council of Nicaea II (787) - restored the veneration of icons.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Because ex filio can be understood in per filio way.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

There are none in Latin calendar afaik. Does that mean Latin Church does not recognize them either?

Zia your experiences are with Melkites who are vastly probably on most liberal Byzantine Catholic side there is concerning Rome, and of AOC who are probably very tolerant towards other communions. Eastern Catholics historically, as well as Eastern Catholics I know, are fully authentically Catholic and did rather become Latins than becoming Orthodox during communism. They take no offense to be called Roman Catholics by those who don’t know better, but take offense on being called Orthodox. Even phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is frowned upon as it is not what St. Josaphat died for and they are Catholic as they follow Pope and all dogmas declared by Catholics and 21 Ecumenical Councils in Eastern understanding and methodology, but according to universal truth which is not western nor eastern.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

No because they call our teachings heresy. How is that just a mere different theological expression?

I don’t know any Orthodox who would call Catholics heretics except for those on the inter webs!

Literally two Eastern Orthodox bishops charged the pope with heresy for holding catholic doctrine and asked him to repent and convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Wandile:

It teaches that there is a schism and full communion must be restored.

I agree, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not in full communion (and I have never suggested that they are) but we are in an incomplete or partial communion (I guess it depends on if you are a cup is half empty or half full kind of person). This does not make the Orthodox a different religion.

When I say “different religion” I’m not saying they aren’t Christian, I’m saying they aren’t Catholics. They don’t hold the catholic religion.

Wandile:

There is a schism and we can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

Whether you like it or not, Vatican II teaches that the Orthodox are “sister Churches” and true particular Churches with apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. We may not be in communion with one another but we are both the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

All this I acknowledge except for the last. The last part is outright error. ONLY the Catholic Church is the one true church and you under anathema if you say anyone else is the church of Christ except the Catholic Church. As Vatican II eloquently said that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. They chose the word “subsist” because it more deeply emphasizes how the Catholic Church alone is the one true church of Christ as subsistence only has one occurrence. So if it occurs in the Catholic Church it can’t occur anywhere else.

The phrase “true particular church” simply means they have valid apostolic succession and sacraments as opposed to Protestants who call themselves churches but have no apostolic succession and thus can’t truly be called churches and are called ecclesial communities.

I see my links have not yet been looked at. I suggest you take a look at them.

ZP

You assume I’m not acquainted with these documents you refer to me